The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

Am I missing something here, or does the OP seem to be lacking in sincerity?

P.S. I would be careful when throwing terms around like "heretic" or any synonym thereof. Not only are these technical theological terms that have very specific meanings, but labeling an entire group of Christians "heretics" can verge on blasphemy. Also, evaluating one's own intentions regarding proving one's own view of doctrine true and another one's false is important. Am I truly concerned with Truth, or do I like to fashion myself as more intelligent or holy than others by doing so?

Fr. Tom Hopko has a great podcast on this very subject. I think it is called, "Our Use of Words".

Thank you kindly. I feel really bad, because not five minutes after I posted my request, I found it by just searching "Catholic Archbishop." I made you do all that work for nothing and I'm sorry about that.

NO, I do not lack in sincerity, I am trying to establish a real difference in faith between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedoninas. So far, I have none. I have lots of knee-jerk reactions from both sides, but when you hold the various fathers side-by-side for comparison: same faith. no difference. I don't know what that means, but it is both inspiring and intimidating.

NO, I do not lack in sincerity, I am trying to establish a real difference in faith between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedoninas. So far, I have none. I have lots of knee-jerk reactions from both sides, but when you hold the various fathers side-by-side for comparison: same faith. no difference. I don't know what that means, but it is both inspiring and intimidating.

Can I just say here that the comma in the thread title, really, bothers, me?

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

My real question I suppose is if my non-chalcedonian buddies have any historical documents that point to the innocence of Dioscorus of the over the top claims made about him at Chalcedon. You will remember that at Chalcedon, there were priests from alexandria that sort of showed up out of the blue and accused him of pretty much ruining the entire city. The New Pharaoh they called him. So, I was wondering what the evidence to the contrary is? The fact that the inhabitants of Alexandria did not acept Proterius? Is there any documented evidence where he says he is being set up, or that those people are liars or what not? Also, any account of his being beaten by the soldiers as flavian was?

You will remember that at Chalcedon, there were priests from alexandria that sort of showed up out of the blue and accused him of pretty much ruining the entire city. The New Pharaoh they called him.

Some is probably true. Dioscorus had at least one mistress, and, if we follow the interpretation of some scholars, there's even an epigram extant in which the size of his you-know-what was admired by Priapus himself. How did the Alexandrians know this? It's probably better that information like that is lost in time.

It is true that Dioscorus' rule was impopular with certain Alexandrians. There was a strong anti-Dioscorus faction in Alexandria that had support abroad. So that should tell you at least something.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 10:37:34 AM by Cyrillic »

Logged

That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain, The happy highways where I went And cannot come again.-A.E. Housman

I think the problem is not so much there's proof as there is two sides to every story. In the eyes of those who opposed him, they saw him as a tyrant. In the eyes of those who loved him, they saw him as a second Athanasius, defending the faith against a world of tyrants. The issue is not proof, but understanding the context of the issues at hand. St. Athanasius for instance was accused of many things that lead to a certain character assassination of him, but luckily for him, he was able to defend himself in a council. One of the most famous stories of the saint's shrewdness was having someone dress up like him and he look like a regular monk to confuse a prostitute who accused the saint of fathering her baby, where she ended up pointing at the man dressed up as patriarch who she thought was him.

However, in the fifth century, the situation did not end to satisfactorily appease both sides on the charges against St. Dioscorus. So I'm not sure if you'll be able to find a definitive answer to your question on this regard. Something else to keep in mind, St. Cyril, our common Church father and revered saint, was also called a Pharaoh by his enemies. That is not to say that I'm condemning anyone who calls St. Dioscorus a Pharaoh a Nestorian heretic, but I'm only mentioning this well-known reference as an example of showing that this is not the first time bishops of Alexandria received this derogatory "title", and probably even happened to bishops before St. Cyril.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I could look up some of the sources (Gibbon mentioned it, and so did the Anth. Graec.) but what does it matter if he had a mistress? It doesn't change anything about the present.

It doesn't, and "shadiness" at one or another point in one's life hasn't been a significant impediment to holiness, but I'd still be interested. I don't doubt you, because you live and breathe in antiquity, and "the present" for you may be the 6th century, but I'm over here in the 21st, and you're the first person I've ever heard this from.

Logged

Quote from: Fr Alexander Schmemann

The Gospel is quite clear: both saints and sinners love God. "Religious" people do not love him, and whenever they can, they crucify him.

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

"...and that the infamous Pansophia, or Irene, was publicly entertained as the concubine of the patriarch. (Decline and Fall XLVII:3, Gibbons)"

Then there are the Acts of Chalcedon which support the accusation (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, tom. IV. p. 1276.) and the anonymous epigram by an Alexandrian (Anthologia Graeca XVI:19) confirm it. I'm in a hurry so there are probably more sources, but this will have to do for now.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 02:24:31 PM by Cyrillic »

Logged

That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain, The happy highways where I went And cannot come again.-A.E. Housman

So an unconfirmed third hand account, the word of his detractors, and an anonymous inscription? Man, if we went by that, we would have found St. Athanasius and Adulterer, and St. Cyril a murderer! lol.

Even Theodoret at least acknowledged that he was renowned for his modesty. I think that is the opposite of fornication...

"Among many forms of virtue by which we hear that your holiness is adorned (for all men's ears are filled by the flying fame of your glory, which speeds in all directions) special praise is unanimously given to your modesty, a characteristic of which our Lord in His law has given Himself as an example, saying, 'Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart;'"

Even Theodoret at least acknowledged that he was renowned for his modesty. I think that is the opposite of fornication...

"Among many forms of virtue by which we hear that your holiness is adorned (for all men's ears are filled by the flying fame of your glory, which speeds in all directions) special praise is unanimously given to your modesty, a characteristic of which our Lord in His law has given Himself as an example, saying, 'Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart;'"

So an unconfirmed third hand account, the word of his detractors, and an anonymous inscription? Man, if we went by that, we would have found St. Athanasius and Adulterer, and St. Cyril a murderer! lol.

Find me one (1) source from the fifth century that alleges that St. Cyril murdered Hypatia. I went through all of them and no source from that period made such a claim.

St. Athanasius cleared his name in court.

What kind of evidence would suffice? Why would we even care whether Dioscorus had a mistress?

« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 05:36:58 PM by Cyrillic »

Logged

That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain, The happy highways where I went And cannot come again.-A.E. Housman

Even Theodoret at least acknowledged that he was renowned for his modesty. I think that is the opposite of fornication...

"Among many forms of virtue by which we hear that your holiness is adorned (for all men's ears are filled by the flying fame of your glory, which speeds in all directions) special praise is unanimously given to your modesty, a characteristic of which our Lord in His law has given Himself as an example, saying, 'Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart;'"

Not exactly. It shows that Cyril was willing to address Nestorius as a fellow minister at one point in time in the interest of reconciliation. Then at Ephesus, when this letter was read, Nestorius had proven himself unreconcilable. You have to take all evidence in the context at hand, as minasoliman said. Cyril's early polite salutation to Nestorius is not the same as Theodoret's pretentious praise of Dioscorus.

So an unconfirmed third hand account, the word of his detractors, and an anonymous inscription? Man, if we went by that, we would have found St. Athanasius and Adulterer, and St. Cyril a murderer! lol.

Find me one (1) source from the fifth century that alleges that St. Cyril murdered Hypatia. I went through all of them and no source from that period made such a claim.[/quote]So that should be sufficient to show St Cyril did not murder Hypatia. The same lack of evidence should be sufficient to show St Dioscorus did not do the things he was accused of.

Quote

St. Athanasius cleared his name in court.

Did he? He was exiled 5 times and spent most of his 46 episcopal years in hiding. I don't think this qualifies as clearing his name. His name was cleared posthumously. Other innocent victims do not have the same posthumous success.

Quote

What kind of evidence would suffice?

None. Even Jesus Christ couldn't clear his name before the Sanhedrin. In Christ's trial there was no evidence and yet he was falsely accused.

[quote Why would we even care whether Dioscorus had a mistress?[/quote]We care because if Dioscorus was condemned for false accusations, like adultery, murder, and riot-causing violence, then it shows Chalcedon did not have Christian intentions to begin with, much less jurisdictional authority.

We care because if Dioscorus was condemned for false accusations, like adultery, murder, and riot-causing violence, then it shows Chalcedon did not have Christian intentions to begin with, much less jurisdictional authority.

I'm going to jump in first and make note that remarks like these might make your post get moved to the private forums. Let's try to say something less inflammatory like, "it shows that Chalcedon seemed unfair to us". But if we are going to say "did not have Christian intentions", then this invites unnecessary inflammatory debate, and this makes this whole thread even subject to being moved to the private forum.

So if you want to keep this thread public, let's offer more inviting language.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 04:23:32 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.